Sale On a sale of seed of a cer tain quality or variety, it is the difference between the value of the crop produced and what would have been produced less the ex pense of raising it ; Moody v. Peirano, 4 Cal. App. 411, 88 Pac. 380; Crutcher & Co. v. El liott, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 592 ; Dunn v. Bushnell, 63 Neb. 568, 88 N. W. 693, Am. St. Rep. 474. Where rice sold for seed did not grow and it was too late to plant other seed, the measure of damages is the price of the rice, the expense of preparing the soil and plant ing and a reasonable rent of the land for the year, less rent that could have been ob tained by renting the land for other crops ; Reiger v. Worth, 127 N. C. 230, 37 S. E. 217, 52 L. R. A. 362, 80 Am. St. Rep. 798. See SALE.
Destruction of Crops. It is the value at the time of destruction ; Teller v. Dredging Co., 151 Cal. 209, 90 Pac. 942, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 267, 12 Ann. Cas. 779, with note ; Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pool, 70 Tex. 713, 8 S. W. 535. Some cases add the value of the owner's right to harvest the crop when ripe ; St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal Ry. Ass'n v. Schultz, 226' Ill. 409, 80 N. E. 879. Some cases hold it to be tile net profit the owner would have received less the ex pense of raising and marketing it ; Hopkins v. Commercial Co., 16 Mont. 356, 40 Pac. 865. In Drake v. R. Co., 63 Ia. 302, 19 N. W. 215, 50 Am. Rep. 746, it was held to be the dif ference in the value of the land just before and just after the injury was inflicted; but this case is criticised as stating an imprac ticable rule ; 2 Farnham, Waters 1873. In terest has sometimes been allowed ; Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Wallis, 82 Ark. 447, 102 S. W. 390 ; Clark v. Banks et al., 6 Houst. (Del.) 584.
Eminent Domain. Where land is condemn ed and taken for public use under the power of eminent domain the measure of damages is the marketable value of the property tak en. The value of the property to the gov ernment, state or city, for whose particular use it is taken "is not a criterion. The own er must be compensated for what is taken from him and that is done when he is paid its fair marketable value for its uses and purposes" ; U. S. v. Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 33 Sup. Ct. 667, 57 L. Ed. 1063 ; U. S. v. Plantation Co., 122 Fed. 581, 58 C. C. A. 279 ; Moulton v. Water Co., 137 Mass. 163 ; Allaway v. Nashville, 88 Tenn. 510, 13 S. W. 123, 8 L. R. A. 123.
As to property taken or injured for pub lic use, see EMINENT DOMAIN; Sedg. Meas. Dam. ch. xxxvi.; Hale, Dam. 167 ; 5 Am. &
Eng. Ry. Cas. 352, 386 ; 14 id. 207; change of grade ; 4 Am. Ry. & Corp. Cas. 277 ; rights of landlords, tenants, and reversioners ; Cor rigan v. City of Chicago, 144 Ill. 537, 33 N. E. 746, 21 L. R. A. 212 ; 4 Am. Ry. & Corp. Cas. 744; benefit to abutting property to rebut proof of damage; Bohm v. R. Co., 129 N. Y. 576, 29 N. E. 802, 14 L. R. A. 344.
See DAMAGES; CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES; LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; LATERAL SUPPORT; TELEGRAPH.
Exemplary Damages. Those allowed as a punishment for torts committed with fraud, actual malice, or deliberate violence or op pression ; they are allowed in trespass for assault and battery in addition to compensa tory damages ; Fay v. Parker, 53 N. H. 342, 16 Am. Rep. 270 ; and may be recovered against corporations ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Roth, 130 Ky. 759, 114 S. W. 264.
In nearly all of the states, in such cases, the jury are not confined to a strict com pensation for the plaintiff's loss, but may, in assessing damages, allow an additional sum by way of punishment for the wrong done. This allowance is termed "smart money," or "exemplary," "vindictive," or "punitive" dam ages.
Some courts, however, have declined to recognize the doctrine ; Spear v. Hubbard, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 143 ; Barnard v. Poor, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 378 (and see Hawes v. Knowles, 114 Mass. 518, 19 Am. Rep. 383); Murphy v. Hobbs, 7 Col. 541, 5 Pac. 119, 49 Am. Rep. 366; Riewe v. McCormick, 11 Neb. 261, 9 N. W. 88 ; Wil§on v. Bowen, 64 Mich. 133, 31 N. W. 81 ; Bixby v. Dunlap, 56 N. H. 456, 22 Am. Rep. 475 (overruling earlier cases).
Some other courts refuse punitive damag es ; but allow exemplary damage as compen satory or "indeterminate damages ;" Pegram v. Stortz, 31 W. Va. 220, 6 S. E. 485; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hause, 1 Wyo. 27; Quigley v. R. Co., 11 Nev. 350, 21 Am. Rep. 757. In some of these jurisdictions they are really allowed under the guise of compensation for mental suffering and the like.
"Whenever the injury complained of is the result of the fraud, malice or wilful or wanton act of the defendant, and the circumstances of the case are ouch as call for such damages, vindictive damages may be given. The general rule is that, when the injury has been inflicted maliciously or wantonly, and with circumstances of contumely or indignity, the jury are not restricted to actual damages, but , may give such damages in addition thereto as the circumstances of the case seem to warrant, to de ter others from like offences." Wood's Mayne, Dam. 58; Webb, Pollock, Torts 219.